alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6258

CHRISTOPHER A. WOODY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv
- 02574

- MBS )

Submitted : August 31, 2017 Decided: October 31, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Caroline M. Scrantom , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General , Colu mbia, S outh Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher A. Woody seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 1 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
the district court’s assessment of the consti tutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositi ve procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woody has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

1 Although Woody’s notice of appeal identifies both the district court’s opinion and order granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, Woody’s informal brief challenges only the court’s r easoning in the opinion and order granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we limit our review to that opinion and order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

2 With respect to Woody’s claim that his trial counsel failed to introduce certain documents at a pretrial suppression hearing, we conclude that Woody has waived appellate review of the claim by faili ng to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on that claim after receiving proper notice. See Wright v. (Continued)3 dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proce ss.

DISMISSED

Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
#### The People op the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Clifford, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), imposed March 5,1990.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

Inasmuch as the defendant, in the course of his plea bargain, knowingly and voluntarily waived any right to appeal based upon the alleged excessiveness of his sentence, the instant appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Lawrence, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
□ □ □ 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless 

it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control numbers for these information collections are 0579-0040, 0579-0218, 0579-0228, 

0579-0393, and 0579-0453. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average between .16 and 1 hours per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

OMB APPROVED 

0579-0040, 0218,

0228, 0393, and 0453

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

VETERINARY SERVICES 

DECLARATION OF IMPORTATION 

(Animals, Animal Semen, Animal Embryos, Birds, Poultry, 

or Hatching Eggs) 

1. PORT OF ARRIVAL 2. DATE OF ARRIVAL 

3. IMPORT PERMIT NUMBERS 

4. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE 

5. PORT OF EMBARKATION (city, country) 

INSTRUCTIONS: Importer, owner, or authorized agent shall complete an original 

and one copy, which shall be presented to Collector of Customs, at port of arrival for 

appropriate distribution. 

6. CARRIER AND VESSEL OR FLIGHT NUMBER 

7. NAME AND ADDRESS OF IMPORTER (include ZIP code) 8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF BROKER (if any) (include ZIP code and telephone number) 

9. ANIMALS, ANIMAL SEMEN, ANIMAL EMBRYOS, BIRDS, POULTRY, OR HATCHING EGGS 

A. 

NUMBER 

B. 

COMMON NAME 

(for domestic livestock or poultry, 

show breed and species) 

C. 

SEX 

(when it can 

be determined) 

D. 

PURPOSE OF IMPORTATION 

(dairy, feeding, grazing, breeding, racing, pleasure, slaughter, special breeding*, 

hatching, exhibition, propagation, medical, scientific, educational, etc.) 

10. NAME AND ADDRESS OF DESTINATION AFTER RELEASE (include ZIP code) 

I hereby request quarantine or inspection service and agree to reimburse 

Veterinary Services or pay in advance for the cost thereof, as may be required, 

and waive all claim against Veterinary Services or their employees for 

damages which may arise from such service. 

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. 

11. EXECUTED BY (Signature) 

12. TYPE OR PRINT NAME AS SIGNED IN ITEM 11 

REMARKS 

13. TITLE 

Authorized Agent Owner Importer 

14. DATE 

VS FORM 17-29 Previous edition is obsolete. 

MAY 2017
# C_2020414EN.01000802.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Vodafone España SAU v Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

(Case C-443/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 13 - Fee for rights of use for radio frequencies - Sectoral national legislation subjecting the allocation of public radio frequencies to a charge - National legislation subjecting the grant of administrative concessions on public assets to a tax on the transfer of assets)

(2020/C 414/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone España SAU

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, whose legislation provides that the right to use radio frequencies is subject to a charge for the allocation of public radio frequencies, from also subjecting the grant of administrative concessions in that field to a tax on the transfer of assets applicable generally to the grant of administrative concessions on public assets under legislation that is not specifically applicable to the electronic communications sector, where the chargeable event giving rise to that tax is linked to the granting of rights of use for radio frequencies, provided that that charge and that tax, taken together, satisfy the conditions set out in that article, in particular, the condition relating to the proportionate nature of the amount collected in return for the right to use radio frequencies, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Jack K. Lai, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.; and
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report.

Date: April 29, 2004



|/s/ Jack K. Lai                                                                            
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jack K. Lai
Vice President Finance & Administration, 
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

---
|
|
|

|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|                                                                                                                
|**Route of Administration**=                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                
|and ****                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                
|and ****                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Output Options (optional)
            Table (copy&paste into Excel)
              CSV (Comma Separated Values)
|Table (copy&paste into Excel)
              CSV (Comma Separated Values)                                       
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Help Searching
Safeguarding American Agriculture

APHIS is an agency of USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs Federal Relay Service

 (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339

December 11, 2006 

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 06-24 

Subject: Exemptions to allow live poultry vaccines administered via wing web to 

 be tested for detection of extraneous viable bacteria and fungi via Title 9, 

 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 113.27 (e). 

To: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants 

 Veterinary Services Management Team 

 Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics 

 Area Veterinarians in Charge, VS 

 State Veterinarians 

I. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this notice is to inform interested parties that the Center for Veterinary 

Biologics (CVB) will allow exemptions for live poultry vaccines of chicken embryo 

origin, administered via wing web to be tested for extraneous viable bacteria and fungi 

via Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 113.27 (e). 

II. BACKGROUND 

The 9 CFR 113.27 (a) currently indicates: 

“Each serial and subserial of live viral vaccine shall be tested for purity as prescribed in 

this paragraph. However, products of chicken embryo origin recommended for 

administration other than by parenteral injection may be tested as provided in 

paragraph (e) of this section.” 

 

Though wing web inoculation is a parenteral administration, CVB finds it acceptable to 

consider allowing products administered by wing web inoculation to be tested for 

extraneous viable bacteria and fungi by 9 CFR 113.27 (e) instead of 113.27 (a). 

III. ACTION 

Exemptions will be considered to allow testing of live viral vaccines of chicken embryo 

origin that are administered by wing web injection to be tested under 9 CFR 113.27(e). 

Establishments already utilizing the exemption are requested to indicate that an 

exemption has been granted. Include the date and name of the authorizing official, if 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

Veterinary Services 

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics 

510 S. 17th Street, 

Suite 104 

Ames, IA 50010 

(515) 232-5785 

FAX (515) 232-7120 
Center for Veterinary Biologics Notice No. 06-24 2 

available. These additions should be made at or before the annual review of the Outline. 

Requests for exemptions to these regulations should be addressed to the reviewer assigned to the 

establishment and be accompanied by the appropriate page amendments to the Outline. 

/s/ Richard E. Hill 

Richard E. Hill, Jr. 

Director
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  Signature:
    
    /s/ Mark E. TiesName:
    
    Mark E. TiesPrint Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
April 30, 1998

20392

#### State v. Kehano

Reversed
# C_2008008EN.01002101.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/21

---

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (P@YWEB CARD)

(Case T-405/07)

(2008/C 8/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schouman, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2007, notified on 14 September 2007, Case R 119/2007-1 refusing its application for registration of Community trade mark P@YWEB CARD, application No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated in classes 9, 36 and 38; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2007, notified on 14 September 2007, Case R 119/2007-1 refusing its application for registration of Community trade mark P@YWEB CARD, application No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated in classes 9, 36 and 38;

| — | Registration of Community trade mark application P@YWEB CARD No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated. |
| --- | --- |

—

Registration of Community trade mark application P@YWEB CARD No 3 861 044, for all the goods and services designated.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘P@YWEB CARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application No 3 861 044)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that, according to the applicant and contrary to the findings in the contested decision, the term ‘P@YWEB CARD’ is not descriptive but, on the contrary, distinctive in relation to the goods and services designated.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements listed below of Gehl Company of our report dated
February 10, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which appears
in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated February 10, 2000 relating to the Financial Statement
Schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

        1.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-38392)

        2.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-39150)

        3.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-02195)

        4.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-04017)

        5.  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-9173)

        6.  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-51723)


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 2, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7597

STEVEN ANTWONE WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-853-1) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Antwone Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s exercise of jurisdiction in the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Steven Antwone Watson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). * The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found in
the Company's 10-Q for the year-to-date and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,952,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,985,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (586,063)
<INVENTORY>                                 16,349,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,626,795
<PP&E>                                      10,013,718
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,027,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,321,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,106,746
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,996,075
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,219,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                91,321,854
<SALES>                                     78,325,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            78,325,058
<CGS>                                       32,629,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,433,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               186,173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             166,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,594,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,395,189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,594,235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,754,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the 
calendar:

       S. 3429. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs to establish a veterans jobs corps, and for other 
     purposes.

                          ____________________
```